2014 is set to be a banner year for BoomBustBlog. As you may have noticed, positings have slowed down to almost nothing. This due to another battle with hackers on the server. As we bounce back, we will take the global macro world by storm. This includes the digital currencies and how they will affect the world as we know it.

I have recorded a brief simple video to explain my perspective on digital currencies. Let it be known to all who don't normally follow me: I'm not a gold bug, I'm not crypto-currency bug, I'm a risk-adjusted return bug! I attempt to see things as they truly are and will call it as I see it. Those of you who instanteously dismiss Bitoin as a bubble or Ponzi scheme are likely doing so without taking the time to fully understand it (it is quite different, I must admit), or read the disruptive change that it's capable of bringing into play - a disruptive change at the level of the Internet and World Wide Web during the the early to late 90's. For an example of this broad based, yet widely followed misunderstanding, reference The "Anti-Economist" Calls Bitcoin the A…

Now, there's no doubt that Bitcoin has been on a tear as of late, after all...

image012

The vast majority of that 6 digit (that's right, "Six" digit) return has occurred within the last year.

image015

The most likely reason stems from media exposure. Please note that I don't think it's due to media exposure, it stems from it. You see, as explained in the short video below, Bitcoin's primary value stems from its inherent ability to truly and absolutely circumvent the gate keepers of monetary value today - the Central and Money Center Banks of the world.

Basically, the gatekeepers of money can now have the locks on their gates picked. The tertiary value is that this new money is "programmable," but more on that later. The more people who realize the value of this new, finite, cryptographic money, the higher the demand pushes the value of the money.

Do I have a point? Well, look at it from obscurity in 2010 to media darling in 2013 - Yes! All 391,288% worth of appreciation!

image023

Stay tuned for more on my take on smart money in the very near future.

Initially, I was going to go the PC (as in politically correct) route and treat Mr. Munster with kids gloves, but we're all adults here and I want everyone to realize that this is not a form of character assassination, a personal or professional attack, libel, slander or even my just being rude. Gene Munster is a professional, and a seemingly intelligent one at that. It's just that he is wrong, dead wrong, and has been wrong for some time. Despite his extreme inaccuracies regarding Apple and its share price, he is the go to guy for the financial press and mainstream media, not to mention the Apple-centric blogosphere for all things Apple investment related - despite his being wrong as hell.

First reference this quick 3 minute video..

Now reference the following graphic illustrating a search on Mr. Munster's Apple price targets...

Yahoo borrows a page from Google's book and gets disruptive for 2014. I like!!!

The old media is ripe to be shaken up even further, and why should everyone let Google's Youtube have all of the fun. Lauren Lyster, a personality who used to interview me often on RT joined Yahoo last year as well. She's good and Yahoo is aggressively recruiting talent and investing in this space. Now, the old guard media, if they had any sense, would retaliate by pushing harder into the new media space. Don't hold your breath for that one to happen any time soon, though.

Paul Krugman wrote an anti-cryptocurrency Op-Ed piece in the NY Times titled the "Anti-social Network". Now, I know the Times needs to sell ad space and subscriptions, hence technical accuracy may not be exactly what they are going for, but Mr. Krugman (the classical Keynesian economist type - I don't particularly subscribe to such schools of thought, I guess I'm not educated enough) has spewed so many inaccurate statements, false facts and just plain old indications of his total misunderstanding of the subject matter one would think it would behoove the Times to either have him issue corrections (or, since it is Op-Ed after all) have someone such as my self (you know, maybe a little less academically involved) come after him and clean up a little.

Now, where shall I start? To quote Mr. Krugman:

So how is bitcoin different? Unlike credit card transactions, which leave a digital trail, bitcoin transactions are designed to be anonymous and untraceable. When you transfer bitcoins to someone else, it’s as if you handed over a paper bag filled with $100 bills in a dark alley.

You see, the old school way of applied economics may very well have a big problem wrapping their collective heads around the concept of the absence of a "central authority" (read central bank) to act as the Grand Pubah, or ultimate financial intermediary. I'm just saying..

And to go on with the oh so witty comments from Mr. Krugman...

And sure enough, as best as anyone can tell the main use of bitcoin so far, other than as a target for speculation, has been for online versions of those dark-alley exchanges, with bitcoins traded for narcotics and other illegal items.

Bitcoin is a currency that's no older than 4 or 5 years. Has any other currency experienced a genesis any different than Bitcoin? The US dollar, when freshly minted was used for the spurious trade of human lives, the lives of my very own relatives several generations back, actually. It was the tool for rampant speculation as well, prone to extreme volatility and purposeful devaluations. Was it really so different from Bitcoin before it went mainstream (that is except for the purposeful devaluations part since there is no Grand Pubah to unilaterally call the market shots)? Methinks this economist may be picking and choosing his facts. For instance, look at how he started the Op-Ed missive in the first place...

Bitcoin’s wild ride may not have been the biggest business story of the past few weeks, but it was surely the most entertaining. Over the course of less than two weeks the price of the “digital currency” more than tripled. Then it fell more than 50 percent in a few hours. Suddenly, it felt as if we were back in the dot-com era.

The economic significance of this roller coaster was basically nil. But the furor over bitcoin was a useful lesson in the ways people misunderstand money — and in particular how they are misled by the desire to divorce the value of money from the society it serves.

Volatility is the name of the game with new currencies that have limited penetration and distribution, no? Why pick on bitcoin? Let's recall how the US dollar got started via the continental note, as per Wikipedia:

By the end of 1778, Continental Currency retained between only 1/5 to 1/7 of their original face value. By 1780, Continental bills - or Continentals - were worth just 1/40th of their face value. Despite efforts by Congress to reform the currency by removing the old bills from circulation and issuing new ones, the attempt met with little or no success. By May 1781, Continentals had become so worthless they ceased to circulate as money. Benjamin Franklin noted that the depreciation of the currency had, in effect, acted as a tax to pay for the war.[1] In the 1790s, after the ratification of the United States Constitution, Continentals could be exchanged for treasury bonds at 1% of face value.[2]..

Paul then goes on to compare Bitcoin enthusiasts to Goldbugs - which was inevitable. I'm far from a Goldbug, and those that follow me can attest. Apparently Mr. Krugman isn't either, but he appears to make a specious argument, to wit:

The similarity to goldbug rhetoric isn’t a coincidence, since goldbugs and bitcoin enthusiasts — bitbugs? — tend to share both libertarian politics and the belief that governments are vastly abusing their power to print money. At the same time, it’s very peculiar, since bitcoins are in a sense the ultimate fiat currency, with a value conjured out of thin air. Gold’s value comes in part because it has nonmonetary uses, such as filling teeth and making jewelry; paper currencies have value because they’re backed by the power of the state, which defines them as legal tender and accepts them as payment for taxes. Bitcoins, however, derive their value, if any, purely from self-fulfilling prophecy, the belief that other people will accept them as payment.

I really need somebody from the academic ivory towers to explain to me the difference between paper currencies being backed by the power of the state and Bitcoins alleged self fulfilling fulfilling prophecy of the belief that other people will accept them as payment. Both of these concepts share one common theme that seems to have escaped Mr. Krugman - Belief!!! Being backed by the full faith and power of the government means nothing unless you believe that government backing has a real value. That real value, if you do believe in it, is solely a function of your level of belief in the government and the governments willingness to back the currency and to what extent. After all, Greek bonds written under Greek law are backed by their government as well, as are Somalian bonds. So, pray tell, what's the difference between the value of those bonds and US treasuries? Belief, that's the difference! Again, a refresher from Wikipedia:

Today, like the currency of most nations, the dollar is fiat money, unbacked by any physical asset. A holder of a federal reserve note has no right to demand an asset such as gold or silver from the government in exchange for a note.[28] Consequently, some proponents of theintrinsic theory of value believe that the near-zero marginal cost of production of the current fiat dollar detracts from its attractiveness as a medium of exchange and store of value because a fiat currency without a marginal cost of production is easier to debase via overproduction and the subsequent inflation of the money supply.